← The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
Trump Indicted AGAIN, Facebook ADMITS Censorship & Now Kamala Supports the Wall?
00:49:07
Loading summary
Transcript73 lines
- [00:01]
Ben Ferguson
Welcome. It is verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you, Senator. It's a very big day because I'm just gonna go ahead and throw it out there. It's my birthday and why not throw in a Donald Trump getting re indicted all at the same time? It's the best birthday present you can ask for.
- [00:19]
Senator Ted Cruz
Well, happy birthday, big guy. I'm really proud to see you enter age 60. You know, you don't look a day over 55. And so that's really great, man.
- [00:29]
Ben Ferguson
You know, 43, I'm never going to catch up to you, sir. You're just older than I am. I don't, you know, older. You can throw in the wiser thing, but I'm still coming for you.
- [00:38]
Senator Ted Cruz
Look, you're 43, so you're George W. Bush today.
- [00:41]
Ben Ferguson
That's right. I like it. So you'll remember it this year. There you go. So let's talk about this indictment for a second. This is crazy.
- [00:49]
Senator Ted Cruz
All right, so it's a big day. Number one, as Yogi Berra said, it's deja vu all over again. Donald Trump has been indicted. I gotta say, I wish that were new. I wish that were different. I wish that were unusual. At this point, it feels like any day that ends with a Y, the Democrats are indicting Donald Trump again. Every time they're scared that he's going to win, they indict him again. So, yes, that has happened again. We're going to explain exactly what Jack Smith did and what it means beyond that. This is actually a big bombshell. Facebook admits it is actively censoring social media and that they was doing so at the behest of the Biden administration. The government asked it and Facebook saluted and actively censored. We're going to talk about that. And then finally, Kamala Harris wants to build the wall. Truly a stunning admission. This is a bizarre chapter we live in. We're going to lay that out as well.
- [01:46]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, it certainly is. Want to tell you real quick about our friends, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. We are quickly approaching the one year anniversary of the horrific Hamas attacks on Israel. And the Holy Land is under attack day after day, this time on multiple fronts from deadly threats that are increasing in northern Israel. Constant rocket attacks from Hezbollah that have been fired at Israel and then the threats from Iran as well. It is a major problem to be safe Israel right now. Now, since the war started, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews has been on the forefront in Israel addressing the needs of those that are most vulnerable. And that's why I am proud to partner with IFCJ and many of you. I say thank you because you've already given donations and these life saving donations are helping provide emergency food as well as critical security needs such as flat jackets, firefighting equipment, armored vehicles, including armored ambulances that have been used countless times since the attacks, temporary bomb shelters that are being installed as we speak, and much more. Right now we're asking for 500 of you to join the fellowship and meet by donating a hundred and fifty dollars to meet these urgent security needs. And thanks to an incredible IFCJ supporter, your gift will be matched, doubling your impact in the Holy Land. So all you have to do is call to make your gift right now. 888488 IFCJ. That's 888488 IFCJ or 4325. You can go online as well to support them@support ifcj.org that's one word. Supportifcj.org Israel needs our support now more than ever. So go to supportifcj.org and I'll say it in advance. Thank you to all of you that are getting involved and all of you that already have. Senator, this was one of those headlines and I'm, I'm not shocked anymore, as you almost described in the intro there, that the left is afraid Trump's going to win. So, okay, let's try to throw him in jail, let's indict him again. But there is some confusion. How is it that this guy was told you did it wrong from the Supreme Court can then go back to the federal grand jury in D.C. and re indict Donald Trump on these four felony charges, in essence going around with the Supreme Court. That's what it seems like. Is that reality?
- [04:26]
Senator Ted Cruz
Yeah, look, I understand that. Let me say, first of all, put this in a broader context. A year ago, no president of the United States has ever been indicted. No major party candidate for the president had ever been indicted. In the past year, Donald Trump has been indicted not once, not twice, not three times, four separate times by rabid Democrat partisans who are very concerned that the voters are going to elect him. Every one of these indictments, they're not about the criminal law, they're not about the rule of law, they're not about actual conduct of Donald Trump. They are about trying to stop the voters from voting for him in November. We are 69 days away from election Day and Democrats are terrified he's gonna win. And so I gotta Say after four different indictments, to wake up and see yesterday, a fifth indictment. It almost feels like that classic Saturday Night Live skit with Christopher Walken where he's a record producer and his solution to everything is more cowbell, more cowbell. The Democrats answered, everything is more indictments, more indictments. They just want to indict Trump. So Jack Smith, Jack Smith is like, to use another analogy, I don't know, I feel a little bit like Dennis Miller. Stop me before I sub reference again. Jack Smith is like Javert from Les Mis. He is going after John Valjean. And, and, and John Valjean, for him is Donald Trump, and he must get him. And so he filed a brand new indictment, 36 pages. And, and, and he indicted Trump again. Now, it is. You asked, is this permissible after the Supreme Court decision? And the answer is, yes, it is. So the Supreme Court did not conclude that, that Jack Smith had no authority in charges. The Supreme Court did not rule on whether Jack Smith was properly appointed. That was a basis for a ruling from the judge down in Florida concerning the documents case, but that was not in front of the Supreme Court. What the Supreme Court ruled is that presidents of the United States enjoy significant immunity from prosecution. And the line the Supreme Court laid out is that the immunity presidents enjoy is an immunity for actions carried out that are official, actions that are carrying out, that are exercising their power as president. And significant parts of the first indictment were in the direct exercise of Trump's authority as president. The Supreme Court said you can indict a president for that. Look, presidents do all sorts of things that, frankly, you and I can't do. Presidents send the military into combat and kill people. If you and I sent someone out to kill someone, we would in all likelihood be charged with potentially murder or attempted murder. Presidents have authority under the Constitution that ordinary citizens do not. What Jack Smith did here is he refiled the indictment, and you can do that. So one question, and you and I were talking beforehand, and a question was, well, does this violate double jeopardy? And it does not. So double jeopardy is the protection in the Constitution against trying someone multiple times for the same crime. And the general rule is that jeopardy attaches when a jury is impaneled. In other words, when the trial, you get a jury together, you bring the jury, you start the trial. That's the point at which, okay, if the guy gets off, if the guy is acquitted, you can't prosecute him again, because jeopardy is attached at this point. Jeopardy has not attached legally because an indictment has come down, but a jury has not been empaneled, so the prosecutor can indict Trump as many times as he wants to. That. That is part of being a prosecutor. Now, indicting is simply bringing a charge against him. And so what Jack Smith tried to do here was narrow the indictment. He has many of the same claims he had before, but he tried to carve out to excise the bases that were most connected to Trump's official exercise of presidential authority. Now, I think this is gonna fail. I think this is not gonna go anywhere. But as I said, Jack Smith is like Javert. He is on a crusade. And so he did it yet again.
- [08:47]
Ben Ferguson
When I look at the timing of this, and this is the next question is, you mentioned the Facebook story, right? Mark Zuckerberg has now admitted that he played a major part in election interference along with, by the way, the FBI and the Biden regime. So this story comes out naturally like, all right, let's indict Donald Trump again today. Is there any threat that this could also be straight up election interference from the standpoint that Donald Trump's going to actually have to go back to court, be in court, be in a trial between now and November?
- [09:21]
Senator Ted Cruz
No, I don't think there's any risk of that. Look, look, we're 69 days out from the election. This new indictment. A new indictment takes time. You're not going to see a criminal trial between now and Election Day. We're just too close that there's no prospect of that happening that quickly in D.C. there might be some pretrial hearing or something. It could conceivably take one day, but it's not going to consume significant time between now and Election Day. And what this means. Listen, if Trump wins and he gets inaugurated as the President on January 20th of next year, this case will be dismissed on January 20th, because as President, he has the authority to order the case to be dismissed, and he will. So this is number one. It's another political shot at Trump for them to say, oh, he's been indicted again, he's a felon. He's a felon. He's a felon. At this point, they already say he's a felon nonstop. When we have a debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. And by the way, when we do have the debate, this podcast is going to analyze before the debate in great detail what to expect. And then after the debate, we're going to break it down in great detail. I'll point out on this pod. You and I did a special pod the night of the debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. And I think it was a really consequential pod because that night, real time, we predicted and we said, in my judgment, the odds were 100% that Joe Biden would not be the nominee of the Democrat Party, that this would prove to be the most consequential presidential debate in US History. That prediction proved right because just after a month later, they removed Biden from the ballot. So we'll do the same thing on the, on this debate. But I gotta say, I actually am not terribly excited about this Jack Smith indictment one way or the other. Yeah, he hates Trump. Yes. He's willing to abuse power. We know that. This is nothing new. I don't think there are a whole lot of political consequences to another indictment. After there have been four, I don't really see how a fifth indictment has any more political bite to it. And I don't think there are real legal consequences. Now, if, God forbid, Kamala wins, then this legal case will proceed and Trump may be dragged into ongoing proceedings for years as a consequence of this. But in terms of the election, I don't see any significant consequences.
- [11:42]
Ben Ferguson
So let's talk about this other massive story that broke, and this is dealing with Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram. And the House Judiciary Committee came out and said, hey, Mark Zuckerberg, who's the founder owner of Facebook, has sent a letter to Congress admitting some pretty major things. One, that the Biden Harris administration pressured Facebook to censor Americans. Two, they did it. Facebook said, sure, we're all in. We will censor Americans. And three, Facebook then throttled the Hunter Biden laptop story as well. And we have to, I think, connect the dots here. Center. Zuckerberg was all in for the Democrats and Biden. There was a saying called Zuck Bucks. We're talking about tens of millions of hundreds of millions of dollars that were going to leftist candidates. Mark Zuckerberg is a hardcore lefty. It's very clear. Follow the money. But in this letter, it was like he tried to wash his hands of any of that. It's like, oh, I was just trusting the government and I probably shouldn't have. My bad.
- [12:51]
Senator Ted Cruz
So there's a lot to say here. Let me say first of all that that Mark Zuckerberg sent a letter to Jim Jordan, sent it on August 26th. So this week. And this letter is a big deal. And I want to read what's in this letter. It's not very long. It's just over a page. But, but, but our listeners need to know exactly what Zuckerberg said, because there's a lot of substance and then I want to break down what it means. So here's what Zuckerberg said. Chairman Jordan I appreciate the committee's interest in content moderation online platforms as you are aware, Meta has produced thousands of documents to part of your investigation and made a dozen employees available for transcribed interviews. Further to our cooperation with your investigation, I welcome the opportunity to share what I've taken away from this process. There's a lot of talk right now about how the US Government interacts with companies like Meta, and I want to be clear about our position. Our platforms are for everyone. We're about promoting speech and helping people connect in a safe and secure way. As part of this, we regularly hear from governments around the world and others with various concerns about public discourse and public safety in 2021, and I will note that's when Biden was in office. Senior officials from the Biden administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID 19 content, including humor and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn't agree. Ultimately was our decision whether or not to take content down and we own our decisions, including COVID 19 related changes we made to our enforcement in the wake of this pressure. I believe the government pressure was wrong and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it. I also think we made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight, new information we wouldn't make today. Like I said to our teams at the time, I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to the pressure from any administration in either direction, and we're ready to push back if something like this happens again in a separate situation. The FBI warned us about a potential Russian disinformation operation about the Biden family in Burisma in the lead up to the 2020 election. That fall, when we saw a New York Post story reporting on corruption allegations involving then Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's family, we sent the story to fact checkers for review and temporarily demoted it while waiting for a reply. It's since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn't have demoted the story. We've changed our policies and processes to make sure this doesn't happen again. For example, we no longer temporarily demote things in the US while waiting for fact checkers. Apart from content moderation, I want to assess the contributions I made during the last presidential cycle to support electoral infrastructure the idea here was to make sure local election jurisdictions across the country had the resources they needed to help people vote safely during the global pandemic. I made these contributions through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. They were designed to be nonpartisan, spread across urban, rural, and suburban communities. Still, despite. Despite the analyses I've seen showing otherwise, I know that some people believe this work benefited one party over the other. My goal is to be neutral and not play a role one way or the other or even appear to be playing a role. So I don't plan on making a similar contribution this cycle. Respectfully, Mark Zuckerberg.
- [16:40]
Ben Ferguson
Now, I'm sorry, because I just don't believe any of this crap from him. I just. I. Maybe I'm cynical center, but like this, to me, seems like he's hedging his bets. Maybe Donald Trump wins. Maybe Republicans are in control of stuff, and so now I'm hedging my bets. That don't come down hard on me, you know?
- [16:58]
Senator Ted Cruz
Yes and no. I actually have a little bit different take on it than you do, Ben. So let me say, first of all, the admission he made publicly that the Biden White House repeatedly pressure him to censor speech, that's a big deal that is enormously consequential. The predicate of legislation the different states have passed, including Texas, including Florida, is that government cannot use private industry to censor for them. His admission there has real legal consequences because there's a whole doctrine where when government uses private industry to violate the Constitution, that. That. That is the courts can step in and stop that. Now, the Supreme Court this past term basically concluded. Gosh, we don't know that government was pressuring big Tech to censor people. Well, you know what? The Supreme Court's entire assumption was just disproven by Mark Zuckerberg's admission. That has real consequences and consequences that will appear in litigation going forward. So his saying that and even his saying we should have stood up to that pressure more, that's meaningful. Now, the second point he made, which was that the Biden. That the FBI pressured Facebook to censor information about the Hunter Biden laptop. Look, you and I have talked about this at length on this podcast. That was blatant election interference. It may well have changed the outcome of the 2020 election. I am angry as you are that saying sorry four years later is. Is too little, too late. But I'm glad for the I'm sorry as compared to denying it ever happened, that there is at least some tiny kernel of accountability in that. And finally the point about the Zuck bucks. Look, the single largest Democrat donor in 2020 was named Mark Zuckerberg. He invested $400 million in election infrastructure in big blue cities. And that easily could have changed the outcome of the election, by the way. By contrast, the biggest Republican donor in 2020 was Sheldon Adelson. He put about 100 million. So it was a 4 to 1 differential.
- [19:13]
Ben Ferguson
Wow.
- [19:15]
Senator Ted Cruz
Zuckerberg is saying, well, gosh, I didn't mean to influence the outcome of the election. Now I call BS on that. I don't believe that at all. He's, he's a very bright man. He knew damn well what he was doing. But I do think it's meaningful. The closing line of the letter, I will not be making a similar contribution going forward. I'll tell you something I've heard from multiple people in the tech world, which is that Zuckerberg is souring on the leftists and the Democrats, that he's souring on that he had been, look, in the last cycle, he was the single biggest Democrat donor in the country. The fact that he's saying, I'm not doing that again, I'm really glad not to have $400 million coming in on behalf of Kamala Harris in the last two months. If he doesn't do that, that's a big deal. That. That dramatically enhances the chance of Trump's victory. That's good for democracy, that's good for America. And I do think it's a broader sense where, look, I know Zuckerberg a little bit. I don't know him well, but I spent. He and I had about a three and a half hour dinner together. It was a very interesting dinner. Look, he's a crazy smart guy. We did it, by the way, off the grid. We did it in D.C. we didn't do it at a restaurant because frankly, Ben, people would lose their crap if they saw me and Mark Zuckerberg sitting at a restaurant having dinner together. So we didn't do that, but it was an interesting. He reached out and said, hey, I'd like to have dinner with you. I said, sure. And we had, I would characterize, a vigorous intellectual debate where I was very aggressively saying to him, stop censoring people. Who the hell are you to decide what is and what isn't permissible to say? Just allow free speech. Basically, I was urging Zuckerberg to do to Facebook what Elon Musk has done to Twitter. Now, X.
- [21:07]
Ben Ferguson
What was his reaction to that? I mean, because I've been, I've had the privilege of having quite a few meals with you and having those types of spirited conversations are very fun because you're honest, you're blunt, but it's also a genuine conversation. What was the demeanor towards that?
- [21:27]
Senator Ted Cruz
Listen, he's very smart and he's a geek, and I don't mean that pejoratively. I mean, heck, I'm a geek like that. I actually can talk to geeks quite well. I mean, my parents are both mathematicians and computer programmers, so if you really want to walk out. But by the way, when I hang out with you, Ben, you, like, enhanced my cool factor dramatically. Like you were like a college jock at Ole miss playing Division 1 tennis. I was a debater at Princeton. I mean, there's got to bring something.
- [21:57]
Ben Ferguson
To the table, you know, I bring that, you bring the smarts, everybody wins.
- [22:01]
Senator Ted Cruz
Look, I just appreciate in the entire course of our friendship, you've never once given me a wedgie, you haven't given me a noogie, and you haven't stuffed me in the locker. So I'm glad of that. But. But look, I promise Zuckerberg has gotten all three of those. And so I can talk to people who are geeks because that's the world I come from. I will say this. When we had this dinner, and this was years ago, I do think he was intellectually trying to struggle through and think through this issues. I don't think Zuckerberg is a hard lefty. Someone like Jack Dorsey. I've never met Jack Dorsey, but the old CEO of Twitter.
- [22:39]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, you knew he was.
- [22:41]
Senator Ted Cruz
I've had him testify and I've questioned him in hearings. Everything about Jack Dorsey screamed hard lefty. I don't think that's what Zuckerberg is. Does he lean left of center? Yes. But it was interesting on the free speech issue. So. So he's actually in the world of free speech. He's given some speeches saying, gosh, tech should protect free speech. Now Facebook has been terrible on this. They suppressed the Hunter laptop, the Hunter Biden laptop. They suppressed speech about COVID They aggressively suppressed any discussion about the COVID virus origin coming from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which I will note this podcast covered before just about any other place in the world. Yeah, multiple times we laid out the facts for it on verdict. But it was interesting in talking with Zuckerberg and I don't know him well, but you know, three, three and a half hour dinner, he was someone intellectually trying to figure out what the right answer is. And his general approach, he would point to Number one, Twitter. And he'd be like, oh, they're worse than we are. And by the way, when Dorsey was CEO, he was right. And he would point to number two, Google, and they're bigger and more powerful and more dangerous than they are. And he was number to write on that. And then number three, point to TikTok and they're Chinese commies. And he was right in that. And so it was the sort of thing Facebook kind of benefited me.
- [24:12]
Ben Ferguson
Look at everybody else. But so then that brings up this question, how much of do you think this letter could have been connected to the fact that we've seen the pendulum swing so much with a cell of Twitter and Dorsey losing that to Elon Musk, who is all about free speech?
- [24:30]
Senator Ted Cruz
I think significantly. And you and I have talked about, I think the fact that Elon Musk bought Twitter was the single most important development for free speech in decades. Change the train of media. So Facebook is feeling pressure to be a greater free speech forum because Twitter is, I think, the most important free speech forum in the world right now. But I also think, and I can't overstate this, look, I talk to a lot of people in the tech world. I think Zuckerberg is pissed at the totalitarian lefties who he sort of tried to cozy up to, and they've taken his money and kind of crapped all over him. That's an interesting moment. It's just an interesting inflection moment. So I am angry about what Facebook did in 2020, and I'm going to continue to lay that out at length. That being said, I'm a big believer in redemption, so I will welcome Zuckerberg. Mark, if you want to defend free speech, if you want to be a champion of free speech, I want to give an invitation to Mark Zuckerberg be an even bigger defender of free speech than Elon Musk. Because by the way, competition will be awesome if Facebook steps forward and says, we will be a forum for free speech. X can you match? That's even better because competition will make both better. And so I don't want some conservatives are responding to this letter by just beating Zuckerberg over the head with a stick. I think that's a mistake. If you want to come into the light, come into the light. We welcome you if you will embrace free speech. That's good for America and good for the world.
- [26:15]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, it's an interesting perspective, certainly, because mine was more cynical, like, okay, he's just hedging his bets. As I mentioned, with the election coming up, and if it is different than that, you're right. Welcome him in and say welcome to the club where we made us agree on issues but let everyone have a voice and don't pick winners and losers when it comes to free speech. Want to talk to you real quick about Patriot Mobile. Americans are tired and frustrated by a stalling economy, inflation, endless wars, then relentless assault on our values. Thankfully, there are companies like Patriot Mobile that still believe in America and our Constitution. I'm proud to tell you that I use Patriot Mobile because they're on the front lines fighting for our first and second amendment rights. They're fighting for the sanctity of life as well as our military, our veterans, our first responders and our wounded warriors. How do they do that? This is the best part. When I switched to Patriot Mobile from Big Mobile I got the same exact service I was accustomed to but without the woke agenda of the left. In fact, patriot mobile takes about 5% of my bill every month at no extra cost to me. And they give it back to conservative causes and organizations that support that list that I just gave you. I love that because I know I'm partnered with a company that stands up for what I believe in now. Big Mobile, they're fighting against your values. They're giving massive donations to Democratic causes, candidates and organizations, including organizations that are paying for abortions right now. If you don't want your money going there, take a stand for conservative causes and put your values first. By switching to Patriot Mobile you'll get the same nationwide coverage as the big providers because Patriot Mobile use the same exact towers that you're using right now and they back their service with a coverage guarantee. And you can keep your same number you have now, keep your phone you have now or upgrade to a new one. So how do you switch? It's so easy. Now go to patriotmobile.com verdict patriotmobile.com verdict or call them 972 Patriot. That's 972-patriot and if you use the promo code verdict you're going to get a free month of service today. 972-patriot for your free month of service today or patriot mobile.com verdict There is also another story you mentioned earlier and this one I'm sorry Senator, I just laughed when I saw this happen in real time. Kamala Harris has come out and now flip flopped on the border wall issue. She is one that said she would never okay never ever support building a wall. And I'm going to play it because I think people should hear this is her in her own words In Des Moines, Iowa.
- [29:11]
C
Let me be very clear. I'm not going to vote for a wall under any circumstances. And I do support border security, and if we want to talk about that, let's do that.
- [29:19]
Ben Ferguson
But I will never support a wall under any circumstances. Now, the polling data is not looking good for her on security at the border. And she's like, okay, I guess I might be in favor of wall even putting out an ad that shows Donald Trump's wall in her ad.
- [29:35]
Senator Ted Cruz
Well, the single greatest vulnerability to Kamala Harris and Democrats nationally is the open borders they've had for four years. It is the number one issue voters are concerned about. We're seeing an invasion at our southern border. 11.5 million illegal immigrants. People are seeing the death, the suffering, the children being brutalized, the women being sexually assaulted. People are seeing the criminals being released who are murdering Americans, who are raping women, who are assaulting kids. People are seeing the risk of terrorism coming across the southern border, and they're very unhappy. So the Democrats are looking at the same poll numbers we are. They realize, gosh, this is a vulnerability. Now, mind, mind you, they're not willing to change their policies. They still want another 11 million, another 20 million, another 30 million illegal immigrants to come into this country because they view them all as future Democrat voters. They want to stay in power. But we've got 69 days to election day. And so in the 69 days to election Day, they will say whatever, whatever they feel they can to convince the voters to elect Kamala Harris. And after which, she will go hard left and continue to destroy this country. Now, we saw at the outset of her campaign, by the way, she's been the presumptive Democrat nominee for over a month. She's done zero interviews, no press conferences, no questions. They put her in front of a teleprompter. She reads the teleprompter, they tackle her. They throw her back in Joe Biden's basement. They say, shut up and please don't say anything. The first major policy provision she came out for was no taxes on tips. That was literally a proposal Donald Trump rolled out in Nevada. It's a proposal, by the way, that I introduced in the Senate. I introduced the no taxes on tips legislation. When I introduced it, both Democrat senators from Nevada co sponsored my legislation. And there's a reason for that, which is 25% of the workers in Nevada are tipped workers. And so both Democrats immediately sponsored my legislation. Kamala came out and suddenly had this crazy idea, hey, no taxes on tips. So that was where she started, she is now gone. So she also said this week she is not for an EV mandate. Suddenly she loves her some internal combustion engineers. No electric vehicle mandate. Just keep your car. Nevermind that. For the last four years of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, they have been pushing an EV mandate date on every front. They've been trying to ban the internal combustion engine. They've been using regulatory assaults in every front. None of that exists. This, as Obi Wan Kenobi said, these are not the drones you're looking for. Do not pay attention to anything Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have done. Listen instead to the nonsense they're spewing 69 days before the election. But this truly is the one. That is the cherry on the top of the banana sundae. Let me read the headline from Axios. Quote, harris flip flops on building the border wall. If she's elected president, Kamala Harris pledges to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a wall along the southern border, a project she once opposed and called un American during the Trump administration. By the way, I'm going to break news right now, and this may not be news, you know, but next week I'm reliably told from leaks within the White House that Kamala Harris plans to dye her hair blonde, dye her skin orange, and buy enormously long red ties and wear only those in public appearances.
- [32:54]
Ben Ferguson
And you got to add, Beyonce is going to be in there with her doing the same thing. Right? Because if we're going to start rumors, we might as well go back to that one to get people excited.
- [33:02]
Senator Ted Cruz
But by the way, Beyonce is going to be blonde and also with orange skin.
- [33:08]
Ben Ferguson
I love it.
- [33:11]
Senator Ted Cruz
Listen, I want to go back. I want you to listen to a montage that Martha MacCallum put together on Fox of Kamala's prior positions on the wall. Because this is. Look, there's a Yiddish word, chutzpah, that doesn't even begin to capture what Kamala Harris's claim that she's going to build the wall is. Now listen to this.
- [33:31]
D
Axios news calling out Vice President Harris, quote, flip flop on the border wall. Here is some of what she has said in the past. Watch.
- [33:40]
C
I'm all for increased border security where we need it. I am not for a wall. I specialize on transnational criminal organizations. That wall ain't gonna stop them.
- [33:49]
D
No, no, no. Actually, be honest. Okay. But last week, Harris said that she supports the bipartisan border bill, which includes requiring the Trump border wall. According to its negotiators, Axios Reporting that Team Harris says that the bill doesn't include new wall funding. It just extends the timeline to spend funds appropriated during the Trump administration. So we hope we'll hear directly from the candidate to clear that up in an interview, which we would love to see over the next several days, by the way.
- [34:33]
Ben Ferguson
The interview is now going to be a joint interview, apparently on cnn, where she doesn't have to worry about babbling so much because the VP will be there with her candidate, which still makes me laugh. That's her first interview. But we have, we have no policies, decisions. It just.
- [34:48]
Senator Ted Cruz
Hold on, Ben, let me ask you something. So, Ben, you have been following politics closely since you were like in the womb.
- [34:56]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah.
- [34:57]
Senator Ted Cruz
And it's your birthday. So like in the womb was 43 years ago.
- [35:02]
Ben Ferguson
You're good numbers. I'm digging this.
- [35:06]
Senator Ted Cruz
In 43 years, do you know of a single instance ever. And I'm asking this comprehensively. In 43 years where a presidential candidate was so terrified to do an interview on their own that they demanded their VP candidate be there with them.
- [35:24]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah. Bring a buddy with you, right? No, I've never seen that. But what's even more weird. It's weird, but it's even more shocking that is we had a convention. And if you go to her website right now, because I check it every day when I'm doing my show, no policy. There is still no policy tabs on her damn website.
- [35:43]
Senator Ted Cruz
There's no taxes on tips and building a wall and protect the internal combustion engine.
- [35:48]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah. And the same wall that's not actually.
- [35:51]
Senator Ted Cruz
On the website for the fact checkers there, that's just the policy she's rolling out. But. But she has no policies on her website.
- [35:57]
Ben Ferguson
Well, and that's the part I think that Axios was trying to get at is like, give me a break. I mean, Kamala Harris, if you go back.
- [36:04]
Senator Ted Cruz
And by the way, Axios is not a right wing website. It is a center left media organizations. It's not one of the most left wing organizations, but it's, it's not conservative.
- [36:16]
Ben Ferguson
No.
- [36:16]
Senator Ted Cruz
And they're pointing out. Are you friggin kidding me? Like, this is what, what she's saying.
- [36:21]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah. And let's go back to what she called the wall, which she's now using parts of the wall visually in her ads.
- [36:28]
C
Listen, we don't need to build a wall. This is a crisis of his own making. And by definition, just plain speak basic English language definition. It is not an emergency. What's going to end up happening is that he will end up without any question. If he proceeds, we're going to be looking at a situation where in particular, homeowners and landowners in places like New Mexico and Texas are probably going to look at government taking their land. We're looking at military resources being focused again on the President's vanity project instead of focused on real national security issues.
- [37:07]
Ben Ferguson
I mean, she says it's a vanity project and it's not a crisis and we don't need it. And everybody, this Donald Trump is the idiot. I'm the brilliant one. She said this for years and now she's using Trump's wall as, like, as a prop for her own campaign.
- [37:24]
Senator Ted Cruz
Listen, I served for years on the Senate Judiciary Committee with Kamala Harris 100% of the time, without exception. She was hard left, as the nonpartisan bill tracking organization GovTrack rated her. She was the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. senate. She voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, to the left of Elizabeth Warren. She has never once, in any hearing I've been in, expressed any concern with securing the border. She is always, always, always cited on side of illegal aliens, of the cartels, of the human traffickers, of the drug smugglers. In fact, in one hearing with the head of ice, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, she analogized ICE agents to the Ku Klux Klan, which is grotesque, it is offensive. And so now when she's pretending she will secure the border, she has been in charge of the border for the last four years. She has been the border czar. As much as the media is trying to erase that, those are the facts. She wanted this outcome, this invasion is her desired outcome. And if, God forbid, she gets elected president, eleven and a half million is going to become 20 million or even 30 million illegal immigrants.
- [38:41]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, it's truly, it's truly astounding. And Kamala Harris on the border over the years, 2017, I go back, she was asking taxpayers to pay for a border wall. She said it was, quote, a terrible idea. She said Trump's border wall was stupid in 18, in 19. She said funding Trump's unrealistic border wall would be a gross misuse of taxpayer do. And that is where she's always been. But now it's election season, let's rewrite history of the past. And I don't know, now she's tough on the border. It's, it's, I, I, I hope this doesn't play out the way she thinks it is. The media is going to cover for. And I've got a question about that I want to ask you in a second. But let me tell you about Ammo Squared. I love it when I get notes from you guys on social media telling us that you get to use companies that I tell you about and that you love them. Ammo squared is just awesome. If you're a second amendment guy or gal and you love to shoot and you want to make sure you got ammo no matter what happens in the future. If there's a run on ammo like we saw during COVID you're covered if you're at Ammo Squared. Because Ammo squared helps you ensure that you have ammo when you need it. It is an automated approach to purchasing ammo on any budget. All you do is pick your calibers, you set your budget, then you select a shipping trigger, and that's it. Your ammo grows slowly over time. And this is the cool part. It is stored for free as it builds up and it shipped with a click of 3, 2, 1, and it shipped with a click of a button or automatically on your schedule. Unlike a traditional subscription service, you aren't forced into a set budget or a monthly shipment. You decide your budget. You schedule when you want your ammo to arrive. Ammo squared also offers nearly 70 different caliber options. And if you buy one caliber for a long time and then maybe you decide you don't need it anymore, maybe you switch caliber firearms, not a problem. You can trade it for another caliber. Now. What happens if prices go through the roof like they did during COVID Well, you can cash in on that investment like a 401k and sell that ammo back for big markups. So if you want to try Ammo Squared, I want to give you some free ammo right now in your account. All you got to do is go to ammo squared.com Ben ammo squared.com Benaday to get free ammo in your account. There is no minimum to buy, no membership needed, and no extra fees. Customers can buy ammo on a small budget and watch it grow. Ammo squared.com Ben today to get free ammo in your account. Senator, finally I want to ask you, it finally came out that she's going to do an interview we mentioned a moment ago on cnn, but she's going to do it with someone holding her hand. That is the VP that's going to change the dynamic of the interview. It's going to be more, I think, like propaganda. That's why they're agreeing to this because, like, let's talk about how amazing you two are and your relationship and how Excited you are. It's not going to get into the policy stuff. That's what drives me nuts about the fact that they're even calling this an interview. It's not. It's propaganda.
- [41:59]
Senator Ted Cruz
Well, let me say several points on this. Number one, the Kamala Harris campaign spent weeks, I mean, it's been, I think, 37 days since she was the presumptive nominee. They've done zero interviews. They've done zero press conferences. The last couple of weeks, they've been feeling out different media outlets saying, hey, who wants to do the first interview? Because I guess we can't go all the way to election day without doing interview. So we're gonna do one who's willing to throw us the most softballs, who's willing to give us the most gentle format imaginable. And it turns out, ding, ding, ding. Winner, chicken dinner. Cnn, step forward. So there are several questions. Number one, it is astonishing that the interview is not Kamala Harris, but it's Kamala Harris and Tim Waltz. And presumably Tim Waltz is sitting there. So if that Kamala is screwing up, Tim Waltz can step in and try to bail her out. I have never seen in my life. I'm 10 years older than you are. I'm 53. I have never once seen a presidential candidate who was so weak that he or she needed their vice presidential candidate as a safety blanket. That is bizarre. Can you imagine. Just think back a little bit.
- [43:10]
Ben Ferguson
Can.
- [43:11]
Senator Ted Cruz
Can you imagine Donald Trump saying, I need Mike Pence there? It's unimaginable. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton saying, I need Tim Kaine there? Can you imagine Barack Obama saying, I need Joe Biden there? Can you imagine Ronald Reagan saying, I need George Bush there? Like it is. You can go back. Can you imagine George Washington saying, I need John Adams there? Like, like. It is a bizarre thing for a presidential candidate to be so weak that they need someone to hold their hand. But secondly, this is a pre taped interview. They're going to pre tape it.
- [43:51]
Ben Ferguson
Hold on. Say that again. Because I think people don't understand that. Say that again. That's a very important data point here.
- [43:59]
Senator Ted Cruz
This is a pre taped interview. They're going to pre tape it and then CNN is going to edit it. And I believe, and I think many Americans believe CNN is going to edit it. So if and when Kamala says things that are dumb, if and when she says some word salad, if and when there's a moment that's bad, they'll cut it right out. That like, like I have to ask, does CNN and You worked, what, seven years as cnn?
- [44:26]
Ben Ferguson
Hell, yes.
- [44:28]
Senator Ted Cruz
Do they have anywhere in that institution a tiny shred of journalistic integrity if CNN did? Here's what CNN should do. Say, we will release the entirety of the interview. We're gonna put out every word of it. We're not going to edit it. We're gonna put it all out. That's actually what a real journalistic outlet would do. We're not gonna do a package that is a promo piece for the bi. For the Harris campaign. We're going to release. We're going to ask questions and release what she actually says. Not editing out the bad stuff and only including the good stuff.
- [45:07]
Ben Ferguson
And this goes back to CNN's I think, desperation to get the interview. They were willing to. They were willing to basically do whatever it took. And so I think the deal was. And again, knowing how this works behind the scenes, hey, we want this thing to be. Not live. We want it to be.
- [45:27]
Senator Ted Cruz
They were begging. They were grovely. They were conceding that. We'll give you whatever you want.
- [45:32]
Ben Ferguson
Whatever you want. Just give us the interview. Give us the interview. Okay, well, now we also want the VP to be with her. Okay, great. What else do you need from us? And because if you look at just data, live interviews that you can promote.
- [45:45]
Senator Ted Cruz
By the way, the last big interview Kamala did. The last big interview Kamala did was with Lester Holt.
- [45:51]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah.
- [45:51]
Senator Ted Cruz
And Lester Holt asked. Actually asked her some real questions, and she looked like an imbecile. He pointed out that she had not been to the southern border. She'd not been to the Rio Grande Valley. And she, like, it was a disaster. It's striking that even as biased as the big networks are, they wanted more. They wanted make sure you will protect her. But here's the question I want to close this podcast on. You know Dana Bash. I know Dana well. I've probably done a dozen interviews with Dana. She has. Now, what is the biggest interview of her career? What does Dana Bash do to not be a laughingstock, to not be a patsy and simply a spokesperson for the Kamala Harris campaign. Dana, recently, she's been on air saying Kamala was never the border czar. She was never the border czar. So Dana has not been helping herself by giving those talking points. But. But I gotta say, look, Dana, there's gotta be a part of her somewhere that desires to be a real journalist. What does she do to not go down in history as a total stooge.
- [47:04]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah. And it's a great question. I don't know if it's just pure sellout. No matter what. You got the interview, you play by the rules and you act like you accomplish something when the interview's over and you all glad in each other and go, that was so great. That was amazing. Great interview. And how do you sleep at night? I guess you just cash that CNN check and you say, oh, it'll be fine. And look, I don't think any of her comments.
- [47:26]
Senator Ted Cruz
Is that your prediction then, that she totally rolls over, or does she ask any difficult question? I mean, I mean, you know her. I'm asking as a very. I don't know the answer. I'm not trying to feed you the answer. I'm asking you legitimately.
- [47:37]
Ben Ferguson
No, I. Look, I've. I've watched her when. I've watched her. We were on set together when Bernie Sanders was running, for example, and she was tough on Bernie, but that was because they wanted Bernie out. And so if she's all in for Harris, which I believe that she absolutely is, and I don't think there's anybody that judges her selling out in this interview because all the members of the media, the mainstream media, the liberal media, they're all in this together. So you're not judged by your peers. I do think back in the day, whether it was Cronkite or Brokaw or Jennings, like if you did a interview or Tim Russell, if you did a crappy interview, there were people around you that judged you and you were walking around and people were whispering about like, what a sellout. Did you see how pathetic that was? There's not.
- [48:28]
Senator Ted Cruz
I'm going to make a more of that tiny and maybe naively hopeful statement, Dana. Prove the naysayers wrong. Do a real interview, and then don't edit the damn thing. Show the real answers.
- [48:40]
Ben Ferguson
I hope that happens. I really do. And it's. And the sad part is you shouldn't have to encourage a real journalist to do their damn job. But here we are. Don't forget, we do this show Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Make sure you hit that subscribe or auto download button wherever you're listening. And on those in between days, I'll keep you updated on my podcast, the Ben Ferguson Podcast, so make sure you download that one as well. And the Senator and I will see you back here on Friday.
- [49:06]
Senator Ted Cruz
Morning taxes was taxing. Now taxes is relaxing. When you file for free, I can file for free. TurboTax Free Edition. Roughly 37% of filers qualify. Simple Form 1040 returns only. See if you qualify@turbotax.com free I can file for free now. This is Taxes Filed for free with TurboTax Free Edition and get your maximum refund. No schedules except for earned income tax credit, child tax credit and student loan interest. See if you qualify@turbotax.com free.